Community suitability of Soer-Troendelag, Norway
Moderately suitable confidence B · live score 72
79
best land · p90
89%
good land
—
one block
How each domain holds up
Governance, safety & tenure 84
Society, freedom & health 95
Land & water 77
Climate, growing & hazards 69
Autonomy & access 70
Where it pushes back
Food & forage diversityGrowing conditionsSoil quality
Within Soer-Troendelag — 25 sub-regions
Estimated finer-grained reads from the same open data. Phase-1, not yet verified.
Agdenes
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (75)
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Orkdal
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (76)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 79
Rissa
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (76)
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 79
Hemne
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Land & water (74)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Melhus
strongest Society, freedom & health (95) ·
weakest Climate, growing & hazards (74)
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 77
Malvik
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 76
Meldal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Oerland
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Snillfjord
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 76
Klaebu
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 75
Bjugn
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 74
Skaun
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 74
Midtre Gauldal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Rennebu
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 73
Selbu
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 72
Hitra
pushes back: Soil quality
Moderately suitable 71
Aafjord
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 70
Froeya
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 70
Oppdal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 69
Holtaalen
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 66
Osen
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Roan
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 65
Roeros
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 63
Trondheim
pushes back: Accessibility
Moderately suitable 62
Tydal
pushes back: Food & forage diversity
Moderately suitable 62
Reading the land, criterion by criterion
Each signal names the open dataset behind it and how measured it is.
Seed & agricultural autonomycountry C UPOV membership proxy
Governance & corruptioncountry A World Bank WGI + Transparency CPI
Cost of living, labour & landcountry A World Bank PPP, ILOSTAT
Disease / vector burden A Malaria Atlas + dengue Index P
Soil quality A SoilGrids (ISRIC)
Water availability & quality A WRI Aqueduct + AQUASTAT
Terrain & buildability A SRTM / NASADEM
Land cover & degradation A ESA WorldCover + Global Forest Watch
Biodiversity & alignment B Biodiversity Intactness Index
Climate & natural hazards A ThinkHazard + NASA FIRMS + USGS
Growing conditions A CHELSA / FAO GAEZ
Food & forage diversity B FAO GAEZ crop suitability + GLW
Coastal risk B Climate Central CoastalDEM
Energy potential A Global Solar Atlas + Global Wind Atlas
Natural building materials B SoilGrids clay + forest + geology
Environmental quality A SEDAC PM2.5 + VIIRS night-lights
Accessibility A Malaria Atlas friction surface
Remoteness / surroundings A GPWv4 population density
Contamination legacy C Maus mining polygons + WRI power plants
Phase-1 desk screening
These are desk numbers from open data. Soil tests, water rights and the welcome of actual neighbours all wait for a visit — we'd rather say so than pretend.
Other regions in Norway
Compare nearby options, ranked by overall suitability.